25 Greatest Science Books of All Time
DISCOVER magazine (Vol. 27 No. 12 December 2006) has published a list of its editors' picks of the 25 greatest science books of all time. Nobel Laureate biologist Kary Mullis, who invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), provided an introduction to this article.
Mullis listed Entangled Minds among his favorite science books, and he explained some of the reasons why in the Discover article. He continued with:
That was a nice thing to write. Thanks, Dr. Mullis."Books like Radin's doggedly pursue scientific evidence for ideas that have been widely, but unreasonably, discredited for decades, or even centuries. Fortunately, scientists (at least in the Western world) no longer get confined to quarters or excommunicated for their books. But when an author puts himself on the line by embracing an unfashionable idea, even though he is guaranteed to generate scorn or indifference, this should somehow be recognized."
Comments
Knowing that scientists like George Sudarshan, Rustum Roy and Hans Peter Durr (amongst others) show similar open-minded attitudes in public, I also wonder how it can be that, apart from the usual pseudos ranting, not much is heard from either the media or the rest of the science establishment. Where is the limit? Will the bubble never burst?
If the bubble where to burst anytime soon, I hope the right people would get recognized. Lets say that we, over the course of the next 10 years, give all the nobel prizes to top scientists in parapsychology (just to catch up). The experiments done involve physics, chemistry, and medicine anyway, so the prizes would fit nicely.
I hope that the work you and your colleges do will be recognized soon Dr. Radin. I believe its consequences (the change in world view), is of vital importance to our (and many other species) long term survival on this planet.
-Tor
Secondly what are your views on the facts that psi-like effects are being researched such as certain kinds of quantum and zero-point work. also what are your thoughts on the recent British scientific assosiation procedeings where rupert sheldrake was allowed to submit telepathy work? does this not show a change in attitude?
The state of the evidence continues to improve. Mixed messages come about because there is a difference between what people believe privately and what they speak about in public. In private the majority of scientists are far more interested in psi than they will admit in public.
> How much credence are skeptics like james randi given these days?
Depends on who you ask. If you are an angry, pessimistic cynic who passionately believes that other people are stupid because they don't share your beliefs, then the skeptical icons are gods. If you are an optimist and filled with wonder about the universe and all of its myriad forms, then you will view the skeptical icons and their groups with pity because they are living in a highly constrained world of their own making.
I should contrast this extreme dichotomy by adding that there are genuine skeptics who doubt everything, including present authority and common wisdom. Such folks are troubled by the deliberate misuse of scientific concepts and methods for the sole purpose of perpetrating fraud (real "pseudoscience"), and also by both those who assert dogmatic faith of the scientistic or religious kind.
> what are your views on the facts that psi-like effects are being researched such as certain kinds of quantum and zero-point work.
If I understand you correctly, I think that some aspects of work on quantum entanglement are closely related to psi, but not zero-point fields. The former makes a lot of sense to me as an elementary form of psi, but I don't know how to connect the concept of the ZPF to psi other than through the metaphor of being embedded in a pervasive, holistic field of some sort.
> what are your thoughts on the recent British scientific assosiation procedeings where rupert sheldrake was allowed to submit telepathy work? does this not show a change in attitude?
I think it reveals a crack in the wall, but then again, I'm an optimist.
what do you think about the survival hypothesis? Do you think this hypothesis is harmful or unnecessary to Parapsychology?
What do you think of Decision Augmentation Theory Dr. Radin? I've seen that some think this theory explains all PSI phenomena (e.g that the GCP can be explained this way), but I find this really hard to believe. If we also consider less well documented phenomena like your experience with the spoon, surely DAT can't be the whole story?
-Tor
>the survival hypothesis
>Decision Augmentation Theory
I think the evidence for survival is intriguing, but not overwhelmingly persuasive yet. We can test that psi occurs in the living, but so far we can only infer that psi occurs in the dead.
DAT proposes that many psi effects can be explained by precognition. I agree that it does provide an explanation for some effects, but I do not believe it can account for all of them. Fortunately, there are ways to test the PK vs. precognition alternatives, so DAT is the best sort of theory in that it can be falsified.
http://www.amazon.com/PSIence-Discoveries-Existence-Paranormal-Phenomena/dp/1564148955
secondly are you aware that an experiment at cornell university has just made a machine that responds to the effects of observation of the quantum? in essence you look at it and it moves. What are your thoughts on this?
"Admittedly there’s some irrational prejudice against anything that looks unexplainable within physics. But taking into account the mysterious quantum enigma (which most physicists want to ignore) the likelihood of the reality of parapsychological phenomena is an order of magnitude greater than it would be ignoring the enigma. Believing it possibly real, one would look for an explanation within the now-accepted, but still unexplained, phenomena Einstein called “spooky.” "
Allthough I personaly don't like that science always require a theory for strange phenomena to be accepted (experiments should be enough),it looks to me like your "Entangled Minds" concept is getting support Dr.Radin. And that is a good sign :)
-Tor
it's interesting how not long ago we thought of skeptics as those who challenged convention and comfortable "truths"
yet now, they function as gatekeepers and establishment snipers against those who step too far out of line
today's skeptics are giving skeptics a bad name
thanks for your answer about the survival hypothesis. Now I would like to know if there is an answer from you to the criticisms of the skeptic Morten Monrad Pedersen in the link http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/radinbook.htm and the criticisms of Claus Larsen in http://skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/radin2002.htm
Best wishes!